quote:

You suggest that 4E had lowest entry point of all the editions. The sameness of play experience from character to character certainly gives strength to your argument. After all, if I play a ranger or I play a rogue, the difference, really, lies in the story overlay. My character’s primary contribution to game play lies in the ability to dispense buckets and buckets of damage, often outpacing those who, according to the narrative, wield the very power of the cosmos.

The Hitcher;6325904 posted:

Storm, meet Teacup.

Here's my Devil advocate position:

PCs being weak on certain saves is GREAT. It gives them more opportunities to get BEATEN DOWN, and PROTAGONIST FAILURE is where DRAMA comes from. It's only a problem if you're obsessed with the PCs winning all the time, and stuck in the belief that D&D is some sort of competitive challenge. It's not - or at the very least this edition isn't. The DM always gets to decide who fights you at any given time. He or she also gets to decide who your opponents will target, and with which abilities. If they want to go easy on you, they can. If they want to MESS YOU UP, they also can. Either way, the fact that you have some low saves is pretty immaterial. They're just a tool for the DM to play off when it's time for your character to SUCK, which they're going to have to at various points to prevent the story from being LAME. And hey - maybe when you're hanging by your fingertips off of that cliff you'll manage to pull off that one FLUKE lucky roll, and that's when you get to be totally justified in doing awesome and feeling AWESOME.

Dannorn posted:

Ok so I've not been keeping up with any info about D&D Next, 5th Edition, whatever they're calling it now other than when it's coming out. I plan on buying the Players Handbook eventually but was just wondering about something, hopefully some 4e players and people who've run the play test material can help me out.

Now I'll admit I never played 4th edition, I bought the Handbook, read up to the classes, and never touched it again. I was immediately turned off the game by the language used. What I mean is the way the classes were described seemed very rigid, very regimental. Fighter, these are your skills, you can be this kind of Fighter or this other kind of Fighter. It just didn't seem to allow any kind of flexibility or variation, which is one thing I loved about older versions of D&D, 3rd in particular. In 3e I could be a Wizard running around with a greatsword, or a Fighter who used social skills to avoid combat, or any other kind of character I could think of with a combination of feats and skills; they'd never be the best at any of those things but I could do it.

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

quote:

Im ok with characters having a weakness, forces them to think smarter, plan ahead, be prepared. Sure Wizards may get the drop on you and pull a surprise from their sleeve, but thats part of the story. Characters will remember that time when a Wizard locked them down for 4 turns as they watched their friends get their faces smashed in. They will learn that the Greatsword+1 granting free movement MIGHT have been the smarter choice than a Greatsword+3. Clerics will remember "my low level buffs are needed" simply for the advantage mechanic. I think it will balance out in the end.

quote:

pedophiles and zoophiles will be in the expanded players manual

quote:

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

Unwise posted:

I found this wierd too. In my games you can Sneak Attack with Light or Finesse weapons. Jean is a good example.

If we go back to the culture of item entitlement we had in 4e, then we will soon see optimization builds involving throwing magical Dwarven Great Axes for Sneak Attack heh.

DDNFan posted:

You're a day late and a dollar short, buddy.

Have fun playing those non-D&D games you love, since you hate D&D so much and DoaM was the only reason for you to buy it, I guess we'll see you around for the 6th edition rules.

To everyone else who's been arguing for damage on a miss, :p

I was about to quit this hobby entirely if they kept it in there, this was a very close call for me.

Rulebook Heavily posted:

IT

BEGINS

quote:

I'm a little hesitant to say this, as I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm not sure I found all this necessary.

But I think I need to explain.

See, I'm very much against political correctness. I despise it. And I do so coming from someone whom has had it applied. I have a handicap. Really, I don't care about that. But when I had letters calling me "handicapable" or other terms dancing around the fact, like I'm some fragile egg that's going to be broken by calling me disabled or handicapped, it pissed me off. I'm not some fragile piece of glass, don't treat me like I'll break. I'm just a person, treat me that way.

I really don't like PC. And as such, I find myself looking at this with that same lense.

But then, I've never been in a situation where my behaviors were prejudiced against, either, so maybe I'd feel differently. I don't know. I suppose it's due also to a kind of apathy towards things like this. If I were gay, for instance, but otherwise just as I am now, I wouldn't care; I think there are so many people with differences that making a big deal about it seems unnecessary. Just be who you are. Don't sweat the rest, unless someone's prejudicing you against it.

But I dont know. I guess I just have never worried about what people thought or didn't think about me, unless they were actively harassing me.

So I found myself thinking, why is it necessary to call out sexuality and gender AT ALL, whether it was to define it "traditionally" or "liberally," I just don't see where it's necessary. Perhaps someone could explain it to me.

quote:

James Wyatt, the designer of the latest Dungeons & Dragons starter set, is trumpeting how progressive the game’s values are:

[snip summary of how characters "don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender" in the latest AD&D set]

And what could possibly be more authentically faux medieval than that?

[snip comic page boasting about the worship of evil]

No doubt you are wondering ‘Didn’t John C. Wright, famed international author and curmudgeon, just use that picture yesterday to underscore some point about Leftist crazies forcing Catholics to pay for abortifacient contraceptives and calling their unwillingness to do so a war on women?’

Yes, well the picture is appropriate today as well, now that gamer crazies are trying to manipulate kiddie ideas about decency and perversion in sex in a game otherwise concerned with spelunking robbers who slay monsters.

The picture is appropriate every day. Just in case you forget, the insanity from the Left never stops.

It. Just. Never. Stops.

quote:

You could drop those other 1000 grains right next to the first pile and call them two piles, because they aren't merged into a single continuous whole.

That's not what we're discussing. You can merge two one hour periods into a single logical two hour period called "a single short rest". No one is disputing that.

What we're saying is that, if you have two hours of rest, + one nanosecond in between of "non-rest activity", then that's two rests, not one. And there is no rule that can be added that is not worse than the problem it is trying to solve (spamming second wind or refreshing spell slots), that won't add very arbitrary and railroady restrictions on perfectly reasonable PC behavior.

They are going to have to errata this. The definition what consistutes a short rest does not refer to nor impose any restriction on taking multiple short rests, one after another.

GTD Aquitaine posted:

Oh boy, I can finally pay some grog tax!

quote:

James Wyatt, the designer of the latest Dungeons & Dragons starter set, is trumpeting how progressive the game’s values are:

[snip summary of how characters "don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender" in the latest AD&D set]

And what could possibly be more authentically faux medieval than that?

[snip comic page boasting about the worship of evil]

No doubt you are wondering ‘Didn’t John C. Wright, famed international author and curmudgeon, just use that picture yesterday to underscore some point about Leftist crazies forcing Catholics to pay for abortifacient contraceptives and calling their unwillingness to do so a war on women?’

Yes, well the picture is appropriate today as well, now that gamer crazies are trying to manipulate kiddie ideas about decency and perversion in sex in a game otherwise concerned with spelunking robbers who slay monsters.

The picture is appropriate every day. Just in case you forget, the insanity from the Left never stops.

It. Just. Never. Stops.

quote:

I don’t know; I’ve followed Wyatt’s stuff on and off since he was a freelancer, and he’s always had a liberal streak.

And remember that both companies are headquartered in the People’s Republic of Greater Seattle.

There’s a very noisy GLBTQETC. contingent in the gaming hobby. I’m currently on notice at one major forum after publicly declaring I agree with Catholic teaching on sexual matters.

But I was feeling skeptical on 5E anyway. OTOH, given the noisiness I mentioned, this could be the equivalent of protection money.

quote:

Since they’re always adding letters anyway, and since, to the modern mind, mockery is the most powerful form of criticism, I always start with LGBT and then just add a string of random letters. LGBTQXFRMZ.

I think Mike Adams refers to them as GiBLeTs, which is pretty good too. I admire his courage, to remain deep in enemy territory and continue the resistance. http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/

quote:

Ugh. You know, if people want to play whatever in RPGs I’m fine with it. It is a game, after all, but having this clunky statement in character creation is not only pointless its offensive.

Different groups are all over the place in terms of maturity level, in an astounding number of areas. I’ve had groups that were completely fine with cold blooded torture (either from the villains or the protagonists, different times) yet got squeamish at even flirting with the patrons in a bar. (Male and female player characters)

Other groups might not mind sexual content in the game, yet have issues with violence. (Why they were playing D&D, the game that rewards being murder hobos with experience is another story)

And of course, there are also the groups that are made up of fairly young children, who shouldn’t be seeing crap like that anyway. (I can’t find the link now, but there was an artist whose kid wanted to play D&D for his 8th birthday, so the dad made simplified kid versions of classic D&D characters then ran a game using the 4th edition rules for everything else)

Bottom line, the assumption is you can do whatever until the guy in charge says you can’t. Wyatt saying this does nothing besides attempt to earn brownie points because in the end he has no say on what actually happens at a single solitary table.

captpike;17721629 posted:

what? this is like saying "in your world, the sky can be green or orange or any color you like" its stating something already known in the hopes some people will like it.

it worthless and a waste of time effort and paper

captpike;17721665 posted:

so they should say "if you have brown hair you can play the game" too?

captpike;17721695 posted:

thirty years ago that might have been true, today adding "girls can play too" does nothing, it is neither brave nor any kind of risk. its good PR because people THINK it shows Wotc is brave or something stupid like that.

dwarf74 posted:

So a bunch of folks say, "hey this thing about gender is pretty decent of WotC."

Because homophobia and sexism are solved problems AMIRITE?

captpike;17721796 posted:

neither did women, nor are women a minority, nor historically have they been. being as men were the ones doing the hard, dangerous labor that got them killed young.

women and men had different roles yes, but for most of human history neither have a choice. more info

nor even if that were true would it matter, what matters is how they are today, not last century.

-----

because its inclusion implies that it is needed when it is not. because its worthless text that when it goes to the printers will push out needed information. because it supports the incorrect notion that women are persecuted when they are not.

dwarf74 posted:

Because homophobia and sexism are solved problems AMIRITE?

quote:

Social Justice gender retardation has officially infiltrated D&D 5th. You are literally encouraged to play a short, fat, hair, transgendered person in this post.

I don't want to hear anyone bitch about FATAL after this.

quote:

>Your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide

Like it's always loving been. So they threw some lefties a bone by specifically mentioning it and using their trademark newspeak, that doesn't change that I've rolled gay characters since 2e.

quote:

How much does this tranny deity and his followers feature in the setting?

Is it something I can ignore without reworking a large part of the setting? If not, then yes, this is SJW faggotry.

quote:

you arent very good at arguments are you?

the fact of the matter is, SJWs have created a swirling tornado around the /tg/ genre, and the fact that you are oblivious to it is either a flat loving lie, or you are dumb as gently caress. take a look at RPG.net forums. it is a bannable offense to "deny the experiences of a woman." on the eclipse phase forums, if you criticize feminism at for any reason you are instantly banned.

in fact, it is virtually impossible for someone to be oblivious to these things, which leads me to believe that you are saying it doesnt effect you because you are one of them.

howandwhy99 posted:

For me, design-wise and philosophically 5e is better than 4th, different but on par with 3rd, worse than any D&D prior to 2000.

This is not old school D&D, it's 4e mark II. It's another try at making Dungeons & Dragons a Big Model Forge-derived storytelling game.

The rules are interesting in places. For instance, they put Age into Races, include player-directed exploration and discovery (under Finding a Hidden Object), and have a very detailed Exhaustion table. Not to mention a few interesting spell / magic system rules.

EDIT:
The really bad part for me was the Introduction. They still lie about D&D being group storytelling and about not playing a game (deciphering the pattern of a ruleset to achieve a goal).

quote:

I am curious to why you LBT people think you are entitled to get these genders and sexes into Dungeons and Dragons and other games? How many are you and how economically strong are you?

A much bigger group that get neglected is Asians, Africans and Latin Americans and you never see them get any form av notice in games like this. Also, in a feudal society. Problems with famine and disease would be much bigger than worrying over your sexual preferences or gender. There can be an orc invasion around the corner and there is people feeling trapped in another body?

Is this really something you just have to have on paper to some how make it "approved and okay". I do not understand it. Just play what you want, why need to have it on paper?

Also, Corellon was clearly a male elf god married to Lolth before she became the Queen of spiders.

kafziel posted:

Don't snip the book piece, that's a great thing.

sooo.. the formating is terrible posted:

verbose language where there is no need or it
having a paragraph here a sentice would due, this will slow down trying to learn the system alot.

a good example is when they say what vision races have

rather then just say "Vision: darkvision(60ft)" they describe what darkvision is on every entry.

4outof5 posted:

you're right that isn't fair but this is all so dumb

Wizards are deceptively weak because of their reliance on magic for...everything. Even in first party campaign settings you never see wizards completely out of control let alone in home brew stuff if every campaign turns into Elminster and the guys he's bringing along for the ride because someone has to carry the treasure then your group (mostly your DM) is doing it wrong.

The problems with magic:

• Magic is rare (even in high magic settings) I mean really stupid rare; if everyone can fireball each other or any idiot can knock his way into the king's treasure vault society will quickly break down.
  
• A wizard has to learn spells he has to learn them from spell scrolls or through his guild or whatever bullshit the setting comes up with
  
• Spell scrolls are rare maybe as rare as magic weapons
  
• Wizards who know lots of spells and are willing to teach them are rare (or even might not teach specific spells for a variety of reasons from selfishness to moral objection of their use )
  
• Earth shattering reality warping spell (ab)use would certainly bring unwanted attention to the caster and party from the gods and or other planes
  
• A wizard has to keep his spells in a book that can be lost or destroyed effectively rendering him useless

And this is all before you have a DM just flat out say "NO little jimmy you can't take knock because it makes it un-fun for other people in the group we ran into this problem last campaign." Yes if you want to have a campaign where a wizard can have everything he wants it's quickly going to turn into a cluster gently caress but I don't think that has ever been in the spirit of the rulebook or any of the official source materials. Magic's flexibility is there to represent a multitude of choices in utility for the PCs in a campaign not to be an all you can eat buffet of un-fun. For example: do you honestly think the spell wish has a place in any wizards spell book in any edition of dnd? So yes if a wizard has every utility spell in the game and he gets to use it every 10 minutes that sucks compared to jumping 5 more feet but I don't see how that could ever realistically happen.

neongrey posted:

Wiggz posted:

How we fixed the classes

First of all let me say that I am not one who worships at the altar of 'balance at all costs'. These changes were made to address what I felt were inappropriate class features either due to balance issues, playability or theme. They may serve to alter or marginalize some prestige classes on a case-by-case basis. All of these changes have been play-tested successfully.

....

Lesser spell components are done away with completely, effectively giving every caster the Eschew Materials feat.

Clerics do not get the bonus spell for Domain spells. Instead they are able to cast their Domain spells spontaneously (replacing the Cure spell option).

Druids and Rangers can choose between Animal Companions and Familiars.

Sorcerers gain the Heighten Spell feat for free. They also receive their bloodline spells as soon as they are able to cast them (usually one level earlier).

Wizards as a third option in place of Arcane Bond or a Familiar can gain instead an energy ray that has a range of 30' and deals 1d6 damage per level of the highest level spell they currently have memorized. The damage is either fire, cold, electricity or acid damage, chosen at the time the 1st Wizard level is taken. Once this choice is made it never changes. This is a spell-like ability. (We have a host of feats for Wizards who chose this option, allowing them to augment their attack in various ways)

quote:

Barbarians beginning and ending a Rage requires a swift action. They do not gain the Trap Sense class feature.

Fighters progress Reflex saves at the same rate they do Fortitude saves and gain the Maneuver Mastery bonuses from the Lore Warden prestige class as a standard ability.

Paladins do not get Detect Evil as an at-will power and they do not deal double damage against any select foes when first Smiting.

How Ingratiating! posted:

--hermaphrodite is reserved for animals, so using it for people (or gods, I guess) is inherently dehumanizing.

quote:

quote:

Everything Sorcerers do, Arcanists can do better.

Sorcerers are easier to play with less system mastery.

quote:

One of the catch phrases of Next throughout the playtest was "rulings not rules", which I frankly took to be vague to the point of meaninglessness. But now that the rules are out, I absolutely see what they were going for with that,

There are a tremendous number of places in these pages where the text explicitly declares that the result of a given spell, feature or check is simply up to the DM. I don't mean some sort of generalized. "Rule 0" statement once in the rule set-- every edition ever has had that, with the option for the DM to improvise or override RAW as he desires.

Rather, in many cases the RAW itself in this edition is some version of " the DM makes something up as they desire." In other words, DM rulings aren't a function of simply settling points where rules are ambiguous, or coming up with house rules to suit their preferences. Rather the rules themselves call for DM rulings all the time as a routine part of play. The Cleric's ability to call upon divine intervention for example, has rules for how often it can be done and the odds of success, but the actual effect is simply whatever the DM makes up. There is no such thing as RAW independent from rulings.

I love this. It takes one if the central features that set D&d apart from so many other games, and it puts it front and center as a core component of the game.

quote:

I am a big advocate for table variation, so, I also really like this. I think the worst thing to happen to D&D were the "Living" campaigns where you you could bring your character from one table to the next (Pathfinder Society is the same way), because it required a standardization of the rules and a restriction of GM power.

quote:

Your statement about "options for inclusion" was pretty vague, so maybe you'll want to clarify what you meant by that. However, at the moment as much as I wrack my brain I can't think of what you could possibly have meant other than the comment on gender found in the new D&D rules.

If that's the case, I think you're engaging in a serious injustice, be it accidental or intentional.

I was completely and explicitly in favor of Wizards including that, just as they did. Contrary to what you have implied I have never and would never be opposed to inclusion on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. I have always been firmly in support of gay rights; I have had gay and bisexual players in my gaming groups, my wife (The Wench) and I lived for many years with a gay couple renting our spare bedroom, I have been a supporter of LGBT rights in Uruguay (which is one of the most progressive countries in South America on that note, where not only has gay marriage and adoption been legalized but anyone from the age of 12 onwards has a right to choose the gender stated on their identity card), and to my knowledge (maybe someone can point me to a pre-existing work that proves otherwise, but if so I did not hear of it) my Arrows of Indra is the first RPG to feature a transgendered character on the cover.

It's true that in some areas I would be seen as "conservative" by the broken dualistic concepts the U.S. paradigm is stuck with; but this is not one of those areas.

And again, many people reading this might have legitimate reasons for hating me, because of my position on RPGs being radically different than theirs or even for other political stances I might have, but if anyone hates me because they think I'm a homophobe, they're dead wrong. If you or others want to cry angry tears over the fact that the new edition of D&D is closer to my vision of gaming than yours, that it represents a return to old-school thinking instead of pseudo-intellectual 'theory' bullshit or pseudo-artistic pretentiousness, then by all means continue, but I'm sure you can all find more than enough things to hate about me that are actually true, rather than misinformed.

quote:

my wife (The Wench)

quote:

Aren't these rules counting on a dearth of spells though?

Unless I'm missing something, (which is very possible, I didn't follow the playtest all the way through and I only read most of the PDF once)
at 14th level a wizard would have 7 less spell slots in 5E than 3.5E PLUS all the bonus spell slots from high INT. Assuming a 20 INT, thats another 6. So they'd be running 13 spells short.

If they really are trying a return to old-school d&d, the lack of spell slots will severely mess with an all-purpose wizard. If they focus on save or dies, they won't have the utility spells at all. If they help out with utility, they'll have even less spell slots to burn.

and that "less powerful" sword? will be able to swing multiple times a round, multiple times a combat, all day every day.

quote:

Consider no wizard has every spell or even the ones thy do memorized. White room all you want and then actually come back to me after you have actually played in an actual game. Stop thinking wizards are full strength 100% of the time like a video game. It's on you that you don't actually use the skills available to EVERYONE this time around.